Search results for 'Punishment' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Gregg Caruso, Origination, Moral Responsibility, Punishment, and Life-Hopes: Ted Honderich on Determinism and Freedom.
    Perhaps no one has written more extensively, more deeply, and more insightfully about determinism and freedom than Ted Honderich. His influence and legacy with regard to the problem of free will—or the determinism problem, as he prefers to frame it—looms large. In these comments I would like to focus on three main aspects of Honderich ’s work: his defense of determinism and its consequences for origination and moral responsibility; his concern that the truth of determinism threatens and restricts, but does (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  42
    Frej Klem Thomsen (2014). Why Should We Care What the Public Thinks? A Critical Assessment of the Claims of Popular Punishment. In Jesper Ryberg & Julian Roberts (eds.), Popular Punishment. Oxford University Press 119-145.
    The article analyses the necessary conditions an argument for popular punishment would need to meet, and argues that it faces the challenge of a dilemma of reasonableness: either popular views on punishment are unreasonable, in which case they should carry no weight, or they are reasonable, in which case the reasons that support them, not the views, should carry weight. It proceeds to present and critically discuss three potential solutions to the dilemma, arguing that only an (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  64
    Jami L. Anderson (2014). Discipline and Punishment in Light of Autism. In Selina Doran & Laura Botell (eds.), Reframing Punishment: Making Visible Bodies, Silence and De-humanisation.
    If one can judge a society by how it treats its prisoners, one can surely judge a society by how it treats cognitively- and learning-impaired children. In the United States children with physical and cognitive impairments are subjected to higher rates of corporal punishment than are non-disabled children. Children with disabilities make up just over 13% of the student population in the U.S. yet make up over 18% of those children who receive corporal punishment. Autistic children are among (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  64
    Christopher Bennett (2008). The Apology Ritual: A Philosophical Theory of Punishment. Cambridge University Press.
    Christopher Bennett presents a theory of punishment grounded in the practice of apology, and in particular in reactions such as feeling sorry and making amends. He argues that offenders have a 'right to be punished' - that it is part of taking an offender seriously as a member of a normatively demanding relationship (such as friendship or collegiality or citizenship) that she is subject to retributive attitudes when she violates the demands of that relationship. However, while he claims (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  5.  13
    Francesco Guala (2012). Reciprocity: Weak or Strong? What Punishment Experiments Do Demonstrate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 35 (1):1-15.
    Strong Reciprocity theorists claim that cooperation in social dilemma games can be sustained by costly punishment mechanisms that eliminate incentives to free ride, even in one-shot and finitely repeated games. There is little doubt that costly punishment raises cooperation in laboratory conditions. Its efficacy in the field however is controversial. I distinguish two interpretations of experimental results, and show that the wide interpretation endorsed by Strong Reciprocity theorists is unsupported by ethnographic evidence on decentralised punishment and by (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  6.  41
    Uwe Steinhoff, Shortcomings of and Alternatives to the Rights-Forfeiture Theory of Justified Self-Defense and Punishment.
    I argue that rights-forfeiture by itself is no path to permissibility at all (even barring special circumstances), neither in the case of self-defense nor in the case of punishment. The limiting conditions of self-defense, for instance – necessity, proportionality (or no gross disproportionality), and the subjective element – are different in the context of forfeiture than in the context of justification (and might even be absent in the former context). In particular, I argue that a culpable aggressor, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Antony Duff (2003). Punishment, Communication and Community. In Derek Matravers & Jonathan E. Pike (eds.), Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology. Routledge, in Association with the Open University
    The question "What can justify criminal punishment ?" becomes especially insistent at times, like our own, of penal crisis, when serious doubts are raised not only about the justice or efficacy of particular modes of punishment, but about the very legitimacy of the whole penal system. Recent theorizing about punishment offers a variety of answers to that question-answers that try to make plausible sense of the idea that punishment is justified as being deserved for (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   32 citations  
  8. Mark Tunick (2013). Privacy and Punishment. Social Theory and Practice 39 (4):643-668.
    Philosophers have focused on why privacy is of value to innocent people with nothing to hide. I argue that for people who do have something to hide, such as a past crime, or bad behavior in a public place, informational privacy can be important for avoiding undeserved or disproportionate non-legal punishment. Against the objection that one cannot expect privacy in public facts, I argue that I might have a legitimate privacy interest in public facts that are not readily accessible, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  26
    Justin Tosi & Brandon Warmke (forthcoming). Punishment and Forgiveness. In Jonathan Jacobs & Jonathan Jackson (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Criminal Justice Ethics. Routledge
    In this paper we explore the relationship between forgiving and punishment. We set out a number of arguments for the claim that if one forgives a wrongdoer, one should not punish her. We then argue that none of these arguments is persuasive. We conclude by reflecting on the possibility of institutional forgiveness in the criminal justice setting and on the differences between forgiveness and acts of mercy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  46
    Steven Sverdlik, Deterrent Punishment in Utilitarianism.
    This is a presentation of the utilitarian approach to punishment. It is meant for students. The first section discusses Bentham's psychological hedonism. The second briefly criticizes it. The third section explains abstractly how utilitarianism would determine of the right amount of punishment. The fourth section applies the theory to some cases, and brings out how utilitarianism could favor punishments more or less severe than the lex talionis.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  26
    Thom Brooks (2012). Punishment. Routledge.
    Punishment is a topic of increasing importance for citizens and policy makers. Why should we punish criminals? Which theory of punishment is most compelling? Is the death penalty ever justified? These questions and many others are addressed in this highly engaging guide. Punishment is a critical introduction to the philosophy of punishment offering a new and refreshing approach that will benefit readers of all backgrounds and interests. This is the first critical guide to examine all leading (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  12.  24
    Alan Brudner (2009). Punishment and Freedom: A Liberal Theory of Penal Justice. Oxford University Press.
    Punishment -- Culpable mind -- Culpable action -- Responsibility for harm -- Liability for public welfare offences -- Justification -- Excuse -- Detention after acquittal -- The unity of the penal law.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  13. Benjamin S. Yost (2011). The Irrevocability of Capital Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 42 (3):321-340.
    One of the many arguments against capital punishment is that execution is irrevocable. At its most simple, the argument has three premises. First, legal institutions should abolish penalties that do not admit correction of error, unless there are no alternative penalties. Second, irrevocable penalties are those that do not admit of correction. Third, execution is irrevocable. It follows that capital punishment should be abolished. This paper argues for the third premise. One might think that the truth of this (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. Katrina Sifferd (2012). Changing the Criminal Character: Nanotechnology and Criminal Punishment. In A. Santosuosso (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Law and Science Young Scholars Symposium. Pavia University Press
    This chapter examines how advances in nanotechnology might impact criminal sentencing. While many scholars have considered the ethical implications of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, few have considered their potential impact on crucial institutions such as our criminal justice system. Specifically, I will discuss the implications of two types of technological advances for criminal sentencing: advanced tracking devices enabled by nanotechnology, and nano-neuroscience, including neural implants. The key justifications for criminal punishment- including incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution – apply (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  48
    James Q. Whitman (2003). Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe. Oxford University Press.
    Why is American punishment so cruel? While in continental Europe great efforts are made to guarantee that prisoners are treated humanely, in America sentences have gotten longer and rehabilitation programs have fallen by the wayside. Western Europe attempts to prepare its criminals for life after prison, whereas many American prisons today leave their inhabitants reduced and debased. In the last quarter of a century, Europe has worked to ensure that the baser human inclination toward vengeance is not reflected by (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  16.  58
    Benjamin Vilhauer (2013). Persons, Punishment, and Free Will Skepticism. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):143-163.
    The purpose of this paper is to provide a justification of punishment which can be endorsed by free will skeptics, and which can also be defended against the "using persons as mere means" objection. Free will skeptics must reject retributivism, that is, the view that punishment is just because criminals deserve to suffer based on their actions. Retributivists often claim that theirs is the only justification on which punishment is constrained by desert, and suppose that non-retributive justifications (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  17. Matt Matravers (2000). Justice and Punishment: The Rationale of Coercion. Oxford University Press.
    This book aims to answer the question of why, and by what right, some people punish others. With a groundbreaking new theory, Matravers argues that the justification of punishment must be embedded in a larger political and moral theory. He also uses the problem of punishment to undermine contemporary accounts of justice.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  18.  6
    Andrew Blom (2015). Owing Punishment. Grotiana 36 (1):3-27.
    The account of punishment in De iure belli ac pacis develops most fully the relationship Grotius understands between strict rights and those claims arising from dignity or merit, which he associates with ‘expletive’ and ‘attributive’ standards of justice, respectively. The purpose of this article is to provide a philosophical reconstruction of two particular puzzles that arise out of the role Grotius assigns to the concepts of right and merit in the theory of punishment. How, in the first place, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  5
    G. P. Marcar (2015). Another Look at Aquinas's Objections to Capital Punishment. New Blackfriars 97 (1067).
    According to Thomas Aquinas, a sovereign government may legitimately execute sinners in pursuance of the common good. Aquinas outlines his defence of Capital Punishment in the Summa Theologica 2–2, q.64, a.2 and the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146. Aquinas's stance on this issue is well known and his argument in favour of CP has been extensively discussed. This article will focus instead on the objections Aquinas raises to the institution of CP in the ST and SCG, along (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Nathan Hanna (2009). Liberalism and the General Justifiability of Punishment. Philosophical Studies 145 (3):325-349.
    I argue that contemporary liberal theory cannot give a general justification for the institution or practice of punishment, i.e., a justification that would hold across a broad range of reasonably realistic conditions. I examine the general justifications offered by three prominent contemporary liberal theorists and show how their justifications fail in light of the possibility of an alternative to punishment. I argue that, because of their common commitments regarding the nature of justification, these theorists have decisive reasons to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  21.  48
    Mark R. Reiff (2005). Punishment, Compensation, and Law: A Theory of Enforceability. Cambridge University Press.
    This book is the first comprehensive study of the meaning and measure of enforceability. While we have long debated what restraints should govern the conduct of our social life, we have paid relatively little attention to the question of what it means to make a restraint enforceable. Focusing on the enforceability of legal rights but also addressing the enforceability of moral rights and social conventions, Mark Reiff explains how we use punishment and compensation to make restraints operative in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  22.  54
    Antti Kauppinen (2014). Hate and Punishment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence:1-19.
    According to legal expressivism, neither crime nor punishment consists merely in intentionally imposing some kind of harm on another. Crime and punishment also have an expressive aspect. They are what they are in part because they enact attitudes toward others—in the case of crime, some kind of disrespect, at least, and in the case of punishment, society’s condemnation or reprobation. Punishment is justified, at least in part, because (and when) it uniquely expresses fitting condemnation or other (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Dan Demetriou (2012). Justifying Punishment: The Educative Approach as Presumptive Favorite. Criminal Justice Ethics 31 (1):2-18.
    In The Problem of Punishment, David Boonin offers an analysis of punishment and an account of what he sees as ethically problematic about it. In this essay I make three points. First, pace Boonin's analysis, everyday examples of punishment show that it sometimes isn't harmful, but merely "discomforting." Second, intentionally discomforting offenders isn't uniquely problematic, given that we have cases of non-punitive intentional discomforture---and perhaps even harmful discomforture---that seem unobjectionable. Third, a notable fact about both non-harmful (...) and non-punitive intentional discomforture is that they aim at improving the subject. This suggests that, if the prima facie wrongness of intentionally harming another person is the fundamental challenge for punishment, the "educative defense" is the royal road to justifying the practice. I conclude by outlining one version of the educative defense that exploits this advantage while avoiding some traditional objections to the approach. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  35
    Bill Wringe (2013). Must Punishment Be Intended to Cause Suffering? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (4):863-877.
    It has recently been suggested that the fact that punishment involves an intention to cause suffering undermines expressive justifications of punishment. I argue that while punishment must involve harsh treatment, harsh treatment need not involve an intention to cause suffering. Expressivists should adopt this conception of harsh treatment.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  25.  12
    Hon-Lam Li (2015). Contractualism and Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics 34 (2):177-209.
    T. M. Scanlon’s contractualism is a meta-ethical theory that explains moral motivation and also provides a conception of how to carry out moral deliberation. It supports non-consequentialism – the theory that both consequences and deontological considerations are morally significant in moral deliberation. Regarding the issue of punishment, non-consequentialism allows us to take account of the need for deterrence as well as principles of fairness, justice, and even desert. Moreover, Scanlonian contractualism accounts for permissibility in terms of justifiability: An act (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Thom Brooks (2004). Retributivist Arguments Against Capital Punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (2):188–197.
    This article argues that even if we grant that murderers may deserve death in principle, retributivists should still oppose capital punishment. The reason? Our inability to know with certainty whether or not individuals possess the necessary level of desert. In large part due to advances in science, we can only be sure that no matter how well the trial is administered or how many appeals are allowed or how many years we let elapse, we will continue to execute innocent (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  27.  77
    Richard Dagger (2008). Punishment as Fair Play. Res Publica 14 (4):259-275.
    This article defends the fair-play theory of legal punishment against three objections. The first, the irrelevance objection, is the long-standing complaint that fair play fails to capture what it is about crimes that makes criminals deserving of punishment ; the others are the recently raised false-equivalence and lacks-integration objections. In response, I sketch an account of fair-play theory that is grounded in a conception of the political order as a meta- cooperative practice—a conception that falls somewhere between contractual (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  28.  34
    Katrina Sifferd (forthcoming). Virtue Ethics and Criminal Punishment. In Jon Webber & Alberto Masala (eds.), From Personality to Virtue. OUP
    In this chapter I use virtue theory to critique certain contemporary punishment practices. From the perspective of virtue theory, respect for rational agency indicates a respect for choice-making as the process by which we form dispositions which in turn give rise to further choices and action. To be a moral agent one must be able to act such that his or her actions deserve praise or blame; virtue theory thus demands that moral agents engage in rational choice-making as a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  41
    Greg Roebuck & David Wood (2011). A Retributive Argument Against Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):73-86.
    This paper proposes a retributive argument against punishment, where punishment is understood as going beyond condemnation or censure, and requiring hard treatment. The argument sets out to show that punishment cannot be justified. The argument does not target any particular attempts to justify punishment, retributive or otherwise. Clearly, however, if it succeeds, all such attempts fail. No argument for punishment is immune from the argument against punishment proposed here. The argument does not purport to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  30. Jeremy Bentham (2009). The Rationale of Punishment. Prometheus Books.
    Definitions and distinctions -- Classification -- Of the ends of punishment -- Cases unmeet for punishment -- Expense of punishment -- Measure of punishment -- Of the properties to be given to a lot of punishment -- Of analogy between crimes and punishment -- Of retaliation -- Popularity -- Simple afflictive punishments -- Of complex afflictive punishments -- Of restrictive punishments--territorial confinement -- Imprisonment -- Imprisonment--fees -- Imprisonment examined (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  31. Attila Ataner (2006). Kant on Capital Punishment and Suicide. Kant-Studien 97 (4):452-482.
    From a juridical standpoint, Kant ardently upholds the state's right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the law of retribution. At the same time, from an ethical standpoint, Kant maintains a strict proscription against suicide. The author proposes that this latter position is inconsistent with and undercuts the former. However, Kant's division between external (juridical) and internal (moral) lawgiving is an obstacle to any argument against Kant's endorsement of capital punishment based on his own disapprobation of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  82
    Chandra Sekhar Sripada (2005). Punishment and the Strategic Structure of Moral Systems. Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):767–789.
    The problem of moral compliance is the problem of explaining how moral norms are sustained over extented stretches of time despite the existence of selfish evolutionary incentives that favor their violation. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of solutions that have been offered to the problem of moral compliance, the reciprocity-based account and the punishment-based account. In this paper, I argue that though the reciprocity-based account has been widely endorsed by evolutionary theorists, the account is in fact deeply implausible. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  33.  39
    Bill Wringe (2015). Perp Walks as Punishment. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):615-629.
    When Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then head of the IMF, was arrested on charges of sexual assault arising from events that were alleged to have occurred during his stay in an up-market hotel in New York, a sizeable portion of French public opinion was outraged - not by the possibility that a well-connected and widely-admired politician had assaulted an immigrant hotel worker, but by the way in which the accused had been treated by the American authorities. I shall argue that in one (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Benjamin Yost (2011). Responsibility and Revision: A Levinasian Argument for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Continental Philosophy Review 44 (1):41-64.
    Most readers believe that it is difficult, verging on the impossible, to extract concrete prescriptions from the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Although this view is largely correct, Levinas’ philosophy can, with some assistance, generate specific duties on the part of legal actors. In this paper, I argue that the fundamental premises of Levinas’ theory of justice can be used to construct a prohibition against capital punishment. After analyzing Levinas’ concepts of justice, responsibility, and interruption, I turn toward his scattered (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  18
    Hisashi Nakao & Edouard Machery (2012). The Evolution of Punishment. Biology and Philosophy 27 (6):833-850.
    Many researchers have assumed that punishment evolved as a behavior-modification strategy, i.e. that it evolved because of the benefits resulting from the punishees modifying their behavior. In this article, however, we describe two alternative mechanisms for the evolution of punishment: punishment as a loss-cutting strategy (punishers avoid further exploitation by punishees) and punishment as a cost-imposing strategy (punishers impair the violator’s capacity to harm the punisher or its genetic relatives). Through reviewing many examples of punishment (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36.  4
    Alfred C. Ewing (2013). The Morality of Punishment : With Some Suggestions for a General Theory of Ethics. Routledge.
    First published in 1929, this book explores the crucial, ethical question of the objects and the justification of punishment. Dr. A. C. Ewing considers both the retributive theory and the deterrent theory on the subject whilst remaining commendably unprejudiced. The book examines the views which emphasize the reformation of the offender and the education of the community as objects of punishment. It also deals with a theory of reward as a compliment to a theory of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  44
    Zachary Hoskins (2011). Fair Play, Political Obligation, and Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):53-71.
    This paper attempts to establish that, and explain why, the practice of punishing offenders is in principle morally permissible. My account is a nonstandard version of the fair play view, according to which punishment 's permissibility derives from reciprocal obligations shared by members of a political community, understood as a mutually beneficial, cooperative venture. Most fair play views portray punishment as an appropriate means of removing the unfair advantage an offender gains relative to law-abiding members of the community. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  38.  70
    Matt K. Stichter (2010). Rescuing Fair-Play as a Justification for Punishment. Res Publica 16 (1):73-81.
    The debate over whether ‘fair-play’ can serve as a justification for legal punishment has recently resumed with an exchange between Richard Dagger and Antony Duff. According to the fair-play theorist, criminals deserve punishment for breaking the law because in so doing the criminal upsets a fair distribution of benefits and burdens, and punishment rectifies this unfairness. Critics frequently level two charges against this idea. The first is that it often gives the wrong explanation of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39.  40
    Brandon Warmke (2013). Two Arguments Against the Punishment-Forbearance Account of Forgiveness. Philosophical Studies 165 (3):915-920.
    One account of forgiveness claims that to forgive is to forbear punishment. Call this the Punishment-Forbearance Account of forgiveness. In this paper I argue that forbearing punishment is neither necessary nor sufficient for forgiveness.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Thom Brooks (2003). Kant's Theory of Punishment. Utilitas 15 (2):206.
    The most widespread interpretation amongst contemporary theorists of Kant's theory of punishment is that it is retributivist. On the contrary, I will argue there are very different senses in which Kant discusses punishment. He endorses retribution for moral law transgressions and consequentialist considerations for positive law violations. When these standpoints are taken into consideration, Kant's theory of punishment is more coherent and unified than previously thought. This reading uncovers a new problem in Kant's theory of punishment. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  26
    Thaddeus Metz (2000). Censure Theory and Intuitions About Punishment. Law and Philosophy 19 (4):491-512.
    Many philosophers and laypeople have the following two intuitions about legal punishment: the state has a pro tanto moral reason to punish all those guilty of breaking a just law and to do so in proportion to their guilt. Accepting that there can be overriding considerations not to punish all the guilty in proportion to their guilt, many philosophers still consider it a strike against any theory if it does not imply that there is always a supportive moral reason (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  42.  23
    Thom Brooks (2010). Punishment. Oxford Bibliographies Online.
    The punishment of criminals is a topic of long-standing philosophical interest since the ancient Greeks. This interest has focused on several considerations, including the justification of punishment, who should be permitted to punish, and how we might best set punishments for crimes. This entry focuses on the most important contributions in this field. The focus will be on specific theoretical approaches to punishment including both traditional theories of punishment (retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation) and more contemporary alternatives (expressivism, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  43. Christian Coons & Noah Levin (2011). The Dead Donor Rule, Voluntary Active Euthanasia, and Capital Punishment. Bioethics 25 (5):236-243.
    We argue that the dead donor rule, which states that multiple vital organs should only be taken from dead patients, is justified neither in principle nor in practice. We use a thought experiment and a guiding assumption in the literature about the justification of moral principles to undermine the theoretical justification for the rule. We then offer two real world analogues to this thought experiment, voluntary active euthanasia and capital punishment, and argue that the moral permissibility of terminating any (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  26
    Jeffrey Howard (2013). Punishment, Socially Deprived Offenders, and Democratic Community. Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (1):121-136.
    The idea that victims of social injustice who commit crimes ought not to be subject to punishment has attracted serious attention in recent legal and political philosophy. R. A. Duff has argued, for example, a states that perpetrates social injustice lacks the standing to punish victims of such injustice who commit crimes. A crucial premiss in his argument concerns the fact that when courts in liberal society mete out legitimate criminal punishments, they are conceived as acting in the name (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  41
    Anthony Ellis (2010). War Crimes, Punishment and the Burden of Proof. Res Publica 16 (2):181-196.
    This paper argues that there is a default presumption that punishment has some deterrent effect, and that the burden of proof is upon those who allege that the costs of any particular penal system are insufficient to offset its deterrent benefits. This burden of proof transmits to the discussion of international law, with the conclusion that it is those who oppose international jurisdiction, rather than their opponents, who must prove their position. This they have so far failed to do.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  46.  96
    Patrick Lenta & Douglas Farland (2008). Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):273-290.
    Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  33
    Adam Kolber (2012). Unintentional Punishment. Legal Theory 18 (1):1-29.
    Criminal law theorists overwhelmingly agree that for some conduct to constitute punishment, it must be imposed intentionally. Some retributivists have argued that because punishment consists only of intentional inflictions, theories of punishment can ignore the merely foreseen hardships of prison, such as the mental and emotional distress inmates experience. Though such distress is foreseen, it is not intended, and so it is technically not punishment. In this essay, I explain why theories of punishment must pay (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  10
    Zachary Hoskins (2013). ''Punishment, Contempt, and the Prospect of Moral Reform''. Criminal Justice Ethics 32 (1):1-18.
    This paper objects to certain forms of punishments, such as supermax confinement, on grounds that they are inappropriately contemptuous. Building on discussions in Kant and elsewhere, I flesh out what I take to be salient features of contempt, features that make contempt especially troubling as a form of moral regard and treatment. As problematic as contempt may be in the interpersonal context, I contend that it is especially troubling when a person is treated contemptuously by her political community’s institutions -- (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49.  32
    J. D. Shepherd (2012). A Human Right Not to Be Punished? Punishment as Derogation of Rights. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (1):31-45.
    In this essay, I apply international human rights theory to the domestic discussion of criminalization. The essay takes as its starting point the “right not to be punished” that Douglas Husak posited in his recent book Overcriminalization . By reviewing international human rights norms, I take up Husak’s challenge to imbue this right with further normative content. This process reveals additional relationships between the criminal law and human rights theory, and I discuss one analogy: the derogation by states of an (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  50.  34
    Zachary Hoskins (2011). ''Deterrent Punishment and Respect for Persons''. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 8 (2):369-384.
    This article defends deterrence as an aim of punishment. Specifically, I contend that a system of punishment aimed at deterrence (with constraints to prohibit punishing the innocent or excessively punishing the guilty) is consistent with the liberal principle of respect for offenders as autonomous moral persons. I consider three versions of the objection that deterrent punishment fails to respect offenders. The first version, raised by Jeffrie Murphy and others, charges that deterrent punishment uses offenders as mere (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000